Adults Living With a Retro-auricular Left Ventricular Assist Device as Destination Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasingly, there is a trend toward the use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for treating advanced heart failure, as both bridge-to-transplant therapy and destination therapy. Living with an LVAD profoundly influences patients' lives. Only a few study authors investigated the experience of people with abdominal LVADs, and nothing is known about the unique experience of those with retro-auricular LVADs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore and describe experiences and lifestyle adjustments in adults with retro-auricular LVADs implanted as destination therapy. METHODS: Interpretive description methodology was used to explore the experiences of a purposeful sample of 10 individuals with retro-auricular LVADs implanted as destination therapy. Data were collected using in-depth semistructured interviews. Data collection and analysis were simultaneous. Triangulation, journaling, and the "thoughtful clinician test" were used to increase trustworthiness of the findings. RESULTS: Three primary themes describing the experience of people with retro-auricular LVADs were developed: "a new life," "self-care," and "resilience"; in addition, a crosscutting theme was identified: "support system." This article focuses on the theme "a new life," described as a continuum of events. Individuals with advanced heart failure struggle with symptom burden and consider the implantation of the device as the final option to delay death; then, they wait for the surgery that represents a turning point, after which they begin to recover through a process of adjustment until they reach a new normality. CONCLUSIONS: Living with a retro-auricular LVAD impacts every aspect of people's lives. Knowing their experiences can help clinicians to develop targeted interventions and offer tailored support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".